Trade Idea: Darius Miles for Adonal Foyle
The Warriors fan post got me thinking about a way to create even more cap room for summer 2010. Check out Darius Miles contract compared to Foyle's:
Miles
2007/08: $8.2m 2008/09: $9m 2009/10: $9m
Foyle
2007/08: $8.9m 2008/09: $9.2m 2009/10: $10.6m
The biggest difference is that Foyle's last year is a team option. That is the summer the Blazers are targeting for their free agent blitz.
We were already looking at the Blazers realistically being $15-20m under the cap that year. Clearing Miles contract would put us close to $24-29m after signing Outlaw, etc...
The Blazers could add not one, but two max players if they wanted. Granted, it would send their payroll into the stratosphere once the Big 3 signed extentions in the following two years, but I'm just putting it out there.
Would it be worth shipping off, say, Webster and/or Jack to get the Warriors to swap Foyle's contract for Miles equally bad but 1-year longer contract?
0 recs |
12 comments
Comments
Nah.
by morescrillaigots on Jul 14, 2007 12:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
whats the point?
And why would the warriors do this? Do they have interest in gaining an extra year on a contract for a player that will likely never suit up.
by myemic23 on Jul 14, 2007 12:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
3 points
- the chances Miles takes medical retirement look slim to none.
- the Blazers are shopping Jack and Webster. Both are likely gone in the next couple of years. Webster was originally part of the Randolph/Francis trade before Penn saw the Blazers could get the trade exception using Dickau and Jones. We're going to be parting with one or both, I'm just speculating on alternate value we could get for them (though its similar to what the Blazers got for Randolph).
- The whole idea of giving them Webster and/or Jack is why the Warriors would take on one more bad year. It doesn't HAVE to be them, though. It could be protected draft picks, cash money, etc...
by matthewcc on Jul 14, 2007 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure
Maybe for a contract that expires a year earlier. It might be useful to have some cap space a year earlier than the 09 period, when we can expect Seattle to be a major bidding rival.
by howlingfantods on Jul 14, 2007 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not $5m difference
For $15m, we're looking at one near-max player. For $24m, we're looking at one near-max or full-max player, and a $7-9m player. So a superduper star at, say, point guard, and a All-Star small forward. Or something.
by matthewcc on Jul 14, 2007 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nobody's trading for Darius
Addicted to Quack SBN's Oregon Ducks Blog
by Addicted to Quack on Jul 14, 2007 12:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's just a bad contract swap
by howlingfantods on Jul 14, 2007 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that's the big question in this proposal:
Theo and Raef were, and still are, pretty much on par in that respect, as you point out.
I don't really have a sense for how much of an "untradeable" albatross Adonal is.
by QualityPie on Jul 14, 2007 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, its bad
by matthewcc on Jul 14, 2007 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i would
by fatty on Jul 14, 2007 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like your idea, just not the Foyle part...
Antawn Jamison would be even better, except I wouldn't buy him out, I'd let him start at SF.
The bad part is we don't have the contracts to make it work anymore without giving up alot. For instance, a Jamison trade that would work would be for Pryz, Webster, Frye, and Jones (after Aug 28th). Since the Wizards only have 9 players under contract it does work well, but that's alot to give up for cap space at the end of the year. Or maybe not if we don't value those players much.
Also, Pryz and Jack for Maggette works too, and he only has 1 year left...
by Blazerholic on Jul 14, 2007 11:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you 'let' Jamison start at SF
by morescrillaigots on Jul 15, 2007 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















